Can a sphere in pure rolling motion ever slow down?

  • Thread starter Thread starter andyrk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pure Rolling
AI Thread Summary
A solid sphere in pure rolling motion will not maintain constant angular and linear velocities due to the presence of rolling resistance, which ultimately causes it to slow down. While pure rolling involves only static friction, this friction does not perform work, meaning the sphere does not slow down solely from this force. However, rolling resistance, related to energy loss during deformation at the contact point, leads to a gradual decrease in speed. The discussion highlights the distinction between rolling resistance and traditional friction, noting that rolling resistance is generally much less than kinetic or static friction. Ultimately, the sphere will slow down due to rolling resistance, despite the idealization of pure rolling motion.
andyrk
Messages
658
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


A solid sphere of radius R is given a translation velocity vo on a rough surface of coefficient of kinetic friction=coefficient of static friction=μ. After what time does the sphere begin pure rolling? Also find the the angular velocity and linear velocity of the sphere at this time.

This was was found out and calculated by me. My question/doubt was something other which is not in the question. If once the sphere begins pure rolling does its angular velocity and linear velocity become constant? Or will it stop due to rolling friction? It is the same as saying that will the linear acceleration and angular acceleration of the sphere be the same once it has begun pure rolling? I think it should not have constant velocity and angular acceleration because even if it is pure rolling static friction is acting. Does that slow or speed up the sphere?

Also, can a sphere which is executing pure rolling motion ever slow down? If yes then how?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
andyrk said:

Homework Statement


A solid sphere of radius R is given a translation velocity vo on a rough surface of coefficient of kinetic friction=coefficient of static friction=μ. After what time does the sphere begin pure rolling? Also find the the angular velocity and linear velocity of the sphere at this time.

This was was found out and calculated by me. My question/doubt was something other which is not in the question. If once the sphere begins pure rolling does its angular velocity and linear velocity become constant? Or will it stop due to rolling friction? It is the same as saying that will the linear acceleration and angular acceleration of the sphere be the same once it has begun pure rolling? I think it should not have constant velocity and angular acceleration because even if it is pure rolling static friction is acting. Does that slow or speed up the sphere?

Also, can a sphere which is executing pure rolling motion ever slow down? If yes then how?

Pure rolling is an ideal. In real situations rolling friction is always present. SO the sphere is going to slow down. When we say pure rolling there is only static friction acting which does no work and the sphere never slows down.
 
andyrk said:
Or will it stop due to rolling friction?
It will eventually stop due to rolling resistance, which is mostly related to energy lost during deformation and recovery at the point of contact (not friction).

Most these rolling problems are idealized and assume no losses due to rolling resistance, but do account for the energy converted to heat by sliding (kinetic, dynamic) friction.
 
So why is it said that rolling friction is very less than kinetic and static friction? Isn't it a resistance and not a frictional force? And How exactly is it a resistance force? I found this:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/rolling.htm

You say resistance force but what is that? There are a lot of Normal reaction force at the points of contact. Is the resultant of all all them which provides a torque opposite to that of the motion called the rolling resistance force? And how do we know that rolling resistance force is very less as compared to kinetic or static friction? I also have a question related to this. Why is moment of Inertia (I) never greater than MR2?
 
andyrk said:
So why is it said that rolling friction is very less than kinetic and static friction?
I'm not aware of any standardised meaning of the term "rolling friction". It could mean rolling resistance, or it could refer to the usual sense of tangential friction in the case of an object rolling up or down an incline.
Isn't it a resistance and not a frictional force? And How exactly is it a resistance force? I found this:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/rolling.htm
That's a fair description, but perhaps overly complex. If a rolling object is deformable, or rolling on a deformable surface, and there are energy losses associated with the deformation, it will be like it is rolling uphill slightly (or slightly more than the actual slope if not level). The normal force just in front of the point of maximum deformation will be greater than that just behind it, leading to a torque opposing the rolling.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
Thread 'Voltmeter readings for this circuit with switches'
TL;DR Summary: I would like to know the voltmeter readings on the two resistors separately in the picture in the following cases , When one of the keys is closed When both of them are opened (Knowing that the battery has negligible internal resistance) My thoughts for the first case , one of them must be 12 volt while the other is 0 The second case we'll I think both voltmeter readings should be 12 volt since they are both parallel to the battery and they involve the key within what the...
Thread 'Trying to understand the logic behind adding vectors with an angle between them'
My initial calculation was to subtract V1 from V2 to show that from the perspective of the second aircraft the first one is -300km/h. So i checked with ChatGPT and it said I cant just subtract them because I have an angle between them. So I dont understand the reasoning of it. Like why should a velocity be dependent on an angle? I was thinking about how it would look like if the planes where parallel to each other, and then how it look like if one is turning away and I dont see it. Since...
Back
Top